why did panzers have the shields that seem to be made of wood on their sides? to protect the tracks only?
Printable View
why did panzers have the shields that seem to be made of wood on their sides? to protect the tracks only?
The armour skirts were steel plates of around 5 mm thickness. They were meant to protect against anti-tank rifles and they might have helped against HEAT charges too.
CBR
Against HEAT charges - very efficient protection I might add.:book:
No real comment, since this was explained, but it's about the thread title ...
Panzer literally means tank, so saying Panzer tank is akin to saying tank tank as a term. Please don't do it. A nitpick really. :book:
Ugh, I really really hate to do this, but since you nitpicked incorrectly I have to nitpick. Panzer means armored iirc, and the full German term for a tank (at least at the time) was a Panzerkampfwagen, meaning "armored combat vehicle." Or wagon if you really want to nitpick I suppose. That's why the abbreviation is PzKw (or something like that, I am fuzzy on the exact abbreviation, sorry.)
If I messed up, someone please correct me. I might be a tiny bit off with my definition of "panzer", but I know that "armored" is in this case correct, though I think it may also be used like "armor" as well.
Panzer = Tank (or armour (like a bug has))
Rüstung = the armour that a knight wears
gepanzert = armoured
Panzerkampfwagen = armoured combat vehicle but also shortly Tank
Panzerkraftwagen = all other armoured military vehicles of that time
~:cheers:
As said before (and to get back on topic) the plates that “look like wood” were what can be termed as Ablative Armour.
Most were a later addition to the armoured vehicles and most reasons for them have been covered here already apart from that strange “corrugation” on them that makes them look like wood.
It is my understanding this was developed to help combat “sticky” bombs and the like by failing to present a smooth surface for the bomb to adhere to.
It certainly wouldn’t help against normal AT shells as the corrugation allows a greater chance of detonation on impact.
Would I also be correct in mentioning that the ablative plates were placed at a greater negative angle on the German tanks so as to, perhaps, allow a better chance of deflection of the incoming fire? Most German tanks at the time having a predominance of Flat surfaces.
I am not sure if I understood the question right.
There was a time when the German tanks (esp. the Mark4 I guess) had some plates. They had found out, that the standard armor was too weak. They made new models with increased armor, but the plates were the intermediat solution to upgrade the old tanks.
To answer the question about the strange "currogated" look of the later war years surface of the armor on German tanks, it was called Zimmernt coating. It was made of some type of anti-magnetic material that could be applied in the field or at the factory which reduced the tank's vulnerability to magnetic anti-tank mines. I am not sure how effective it was against "sticky" bombs.
The armored skirts, called Schkurtzen in German, were developed to combat the increasing use of Heat (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds by the allied infantry. The concept is known as spaced armor, and is still in use today, as a look at the M1 Abrams or the Bradley AFV will confirm. The idea was to keep a space between the impact point of say a Bazooka or PIAT (Personnel Infantry Anti-Tank) round and the actual surface of the hull or turret. Heat rounds, which rely on a chemical reaction focused on an extremly narow point to penetrate the armor can be defeated by such a screen dissipating the force of the explosion at a safe distance from the vehicle. The skirts also protected the vulnerable suspension components from damage as well.
You have to hand it to the Germans. They really were pioneers in the field of Armored warfare, and developed most of concepts that most modern militarys accept today.
Zher Gut Duetchen Zoldaten!
Sehr gute Deutschen Soldaten. I believe, I know at the least I corrected the spelling of "Sehr" and "Soldaten" and I think I at least improved the spelling of "Deutschen", but without running to get my dictionary I can't be sure that I have gute down correctly, or that "Deutschen" is indeed correct for "German".
Actually the skirts helped the HEAT rounds. As has been proven by many experiments, a short standoff disntace actually increases the power of HEAT.
The skirts were applied to disrupt the AT-rifles the Russians still used to strike at weakspots (turretring, roadwheels, drivewheels, various slots on the sides of the PzIV ect). Only the older PvIII and PzIVs carried these skirts as they had plenty of weakspots for AT-rifles to hit. The more sleek Panther and Tigers had been designed to have much less of these (and the Tigers were strong enough even in weakspots to not care really).
If it had been HEAT in genral, the Germans would have applied them to all their tanks. For as we know the Germans are pretty pragmatic, and all the tanks had fairly weak sidearmour that could be penetrated by the better HEAT rounds of infantry.
Skirts were believed to be effective against HEAT, and in some circumstances they were--in some they weren't. Angle, calibre, and several other factors had to be taken into account, of course, just like a "hull-down position" was often--but far from always--advantageous. While it did help against standard armour-piercing rounds, as well as ATR ammo, that was a matter of course--any additional armour is going to help against these. For the guns the Panthers and Tigers were facing, the extra armor wasn't all that important. APCR and the like were also disturbed by skirts, as it could cause a tumbling effect--good against people, bad against armor.
Wooden skirts occurred but were never doctrine for any military, just like sandbags. Most places you'll read will tell you that their effect was mostly psychological, although having to pass through extra mass will reduce velocity (a little), causing reduced penetration (a little).
Minor point but I believe it's Projector rather than Personnel in PIAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
They were the first to implement it, and implemented it well, but to be fair, theorists in other countries also came up with similar concepts of armoured warfare - Liddell-Hart in Britain for example - but they were seen as dangerous by the establishment and weren't adopted. Germany OTOH for a variety of reasons was more open to revised & modernised ways of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
And at the end of the day, its only adapting the timeless concepts of strategy into the mechanized age. From Julius Caesar to Sun Tzu to Napoleon, the same concepts of manuever and concentration of force have been decisively effective.
The Russians used it against the Japanese at Nomonhon/Khalkhin (XhalXin) Gul in.... '34? And before all that, the concepts that Blitzkrieg was based on were merely the precepts of Mongol warfare--theorists including Clausewitz and most others wholeheartedly admitted that. Mobility coupled with firepower, alternately the ability to place and sustain fire in several sectors over time. The traditional, knee-jerk view is to have a big army that is everywhere. It can also be accomplished with a small, quick army.
So who "made it"? I like to look at Gustav II Adolf. He was considered the "father of modern war," even though things he did had already been done. But--ah-hah! the crux!--he put them together and succeeded with them.
I used to have a link to a website that discussed the original intent of the the Germans skirts and how they worked (or didn't). It appears, despite western beliefs about HEAT rounds, the original intent was against the Russian 14.5mm ATR. Having captured many thousands of the ATR the Germans tested them and found that the round, though large, was not all that stable. The 5mm plates could start the round tumbling and thus waste its energy by not striking true. As others have mentioned, the HEAT rounds could be made more effective by the skirts because the "stand off range" was not always optimal for disrupting the charge.
The problem with the skirts is that the hull plates were easily knocked off by tree branches, hedges, debris, driving through ditches, near misses by artillery and so on. The skirts surrounding the turrets lasted longer.
Additional side note - On the show, Top Ten: Tanks, they mentioned that the German tanks were the first to incorporate radios making the coordination of the blitzkrieg possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
A Guderian innovation derived from the Versailles restrictions. Germany was forbidden from having tanks, so he put radios on cars and exercised with them instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I wouldn't be so sure of the requirement of radios for effective blitzkrieg. The Soviets were notoriously low on such high-tech equipement as radios (commanders' tanks were often the only ones that had then, communications between the tanks being often handled with flags...) and have gone to the books as dispensing with such trivialities as fuel meters in fighter planes too. None of that kept them from conducting very effective mechanized "deep combat" operations once the Red Army had gotten properly reorganized however.
Not that having decent numbers of radios and such around, like the Germans and Western Allies did, didn't be of considerable help in tactical C-and-C of course. But then again the Soviets regularly made up for sophistication and finesse with raw numbers and tenacity. Whatever works, I guess.
Actually the Russians began installing radios in their tanks after their hard learned lessons from the Germans. And by the time the T34/85 made it's appearance, they all carried radios.
About the skirts: From the second link.
Heat? No...Quote:
The icing on the cake for me was the Kummersdorf testing results which clearly stated in Feb. 1943 that ATR and 76mm HE rounds (not HEAT) were tested against schurzen with positive results. After the tests, it was ordered that all Pz III and Pz IV would be fitted with the plating at the factory and in service units would be field upgraded. This original German source is hard to argue with.
It is actually interesting that they tested the HE round. I read an account of a Sherman that ambushed three PzIVs, and it was out of AP rounds. So it used HE, and with very convincing results as the German tanks began to burn or even exploded from this. Suffice to say the crew was quite surprised. Apparently these were skirtless tanks as teh account mention attacks into the flank.
Fair enough, but the /85 was a pretty late arrival. I'm under the impression Operation Uranus for example, something of a textbook Deep Combat/Blitzkrieg job, was still for the most part conducted with rather primitive communications (I've read the tank unit that captured the main German airfield was in fact out of communication with the rest of the army for a few days after the fact...). The Soviets had yet to establish a strong enough position by that point to be willing to spare attention to luxuries like radios in every tank instead of just rolling lots of minimally equipped but functional machines out of the Ural Front tankograds, I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
T34-85 was first used in reasonable numbers in March of 44. Uranus was the first major use of the concepts of Deep Battle but was an interim step in overall development of Red Army doctrine. Whereas in 1941 the depth of a offensive seldom reached a depth of 100 kms, by 1942 (Uranus) they managed to penetrate 200-250 kms and by 1944 upwards of 500 kms (Bagration). In fact, it is 1944 that the Red Army doctrine and 'deception' techniques reach their pinnacle with the destruction of the Germans Army Group Centre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Next to the 2 1/2 ton truck the next piece of Lend-Lease kit that possibly contributed the most to Soviet success were the tens of thousands of radio sets, many of which found their way into tanks. US radios were of better overall quality and more efficent than Russian models so the Soviets preferred the imports to producing their own. It was not really a matter of luxuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
What is the "depth" of an offensive really supposed to mean in any case? I've heard the term being tossed around, but I have no clue what it means.
Well one wants to go deep as one want to capture real estate and surround enemy units. But the ability to go deep is a question of having a proper supply system so the lead units wont run out of gas and be vulnerable to counter attacks. Command and control is another thing as an attacker might simply make a mistake in going too deep only to have his front units getting cut off.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
The Russians became better at going deep as the war progressed, as they became more experienced and got relatively stronger than the German army.
CBR
Roughly, punching a hole in a suitable point of the enemy front and driving through it with mobile mechanized forces that then spread out to cause general chaos and confusion in the enemy's rear areas (and hopefully capture strategically important point while they are at it). Less mobile forces follow through the gap to consolidate and if possible roll up the enemy lines from the flanks.
The Soviets were big on using raw weight of artillery fire to create the initial opening, I understand.
Given that early to the war the main Soviet concern was to throw about everything short of the kitchen sink at the Germans to stop or at least stall them, I'd say some rather odd things would have ranked as "luxuries" they didn't bother with. Soviet armour suffered from poorly and hastily trained crews (as well as in many cases severely overworked tank commanders due to the common two-man turret arrangements) and, I suspect, tended to have rather low life expectancy even in good tanks like the T-34. Wasting too many radios on what were essentially expendable stopgap forces, or the time required to teach the crews to operate the devices for that matter, was quite likely not a very high priority - ergo only commanders' tanks could be counted on to have the devices.Quote:
It was not really a matter of luxuries.
They were leaving fuel gauges out of aircraft too at the time after all...
It was of course different after the worst crisis was over and the Soviets had some breathing space, and could take a shot at being skilled and sophisticated instead of just desperate.
Incidentally, I've seen some photos of T-34s and other Soviet tanks with wire-mesh side panels rather resembling the German Schürtzen. Given the prevalence of shaped-charge antitank weaponry among late-war German infantry it would certainly seem sensible for them to copy the idea (especially as they had way better industrial capacity for manufacturing thethings en masse than the Germans if it came down to that), but does anyone know anything specific about this ?
Are you sure they are not captured tanks? The Germans made plenty use of captured Russians tanks of quality.
If they indeed were Russian, then it seems to me that they copied the Germans thinking it would help against HEAT warheads. However, it seems rather odd that they would not test it out themselves.
Another possibility would be that the Germans tended to use the 105mm artillery gun as a tankbuster when in desperate situations. And while not a great weapon as such, a hit of that size should disorientate the crew a good deal, if not cause outright injuries. But as the Germans proved, the shields were good at protecting from HE as well, so it could be that aspect the Russians considered.
Is this the T-34 you guys are on about?
http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/14809/medium/7270-2.jpg
Ahh... That is quite different from the German skirts.
Are we certain the mesh is of metal? If not then there is indeed a good possible solution.
Look at where the mesh is placed, on the flat surfaces, the most likely targets of the German magnetic mines. So if the mesh is not from metal the tank would be well protected from them.
I dunno, magnetic mines are pretty heavy, I doubt they would be able to stick to a metal mesh. Anything other than metal for the mesh would also be too easy to rip thus allowing easy placement of mine...
On the other hand the magnets on the mines were pretty strong.
But one could also consider the fact that the magnetic mine was a sort of perfected HEAT warhead. Meaning it had the best standoff distance built into it already. So perhaps even ifthe mesh was metal and teh mine could stick it wouldn't penetrate because the disntance would be too great.
Maybe the wire panels were there just to force assorted explosives to detonate away from the armour proper ? While I don't know the details of the fuses used by the Germans' assorted HEAT rockets and the like, I would imagine they were of the impact sort and hitting a taut wire mesh ought to have set them off. And that extra 5 cm or whatever the cone had to travel before it could start melting through the tank proper just might have made the difference. Ditto for HE shells; if you want to cause real damage to a tank with those you'll want a contact detonation, right ?
At least the model in the pic Suribachi provided appears to have panels on its horizontal surfaces too - the places where grenades, satchel charges and suchlike thrown by infantrymen would most likely be exploding if I understand correctly...
Something has struck me...
The Panzerfaust was propelled pretty slowly, more like a riflegrenade than a rocket. So it wouldn't be surprising if a Panzerfaust hit this relatively elastic mesh it simply wouldn't detonate?
I think you may be right on that issues. Meshcages are frequently used by lightly armored vehicles sto decrease the danger of RPG's. Not suprisingly they are partly based on the German Panzerfaust.
In any case even in case they would explode the distance would help to mitigate the effect of the warhead..
I think you may be right on that issues. Meshcages are frequently used by lightly armored vehicles sto decrease the danger of RPG's. Not suprisingly they are partly based on the German Panzerfaust.
In any case even in case they would explode the distance would help to mitigate the effect of the warhead..
Good question if I may say ...
Did a little research and its really much more complicated than I would have expected ...
If interested suggest you check
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...rting-ww2.html
and this with a somehow apparently thourough analysis.
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/news/new...angenet.dk.txt
(added link)
Very good information you have provided us Jxrc. Appearantly, I have been a victim of the wartime analysis done by American intelligence, which myth has been perpetuated all this time. I had no idea that the original tests never were done using hollow charged, or HEAT rounds. Perhaps it was the fact that the appearance of these skirts coincided with that of the Bazooka in late 1943, and was interpreted by American intelligence as a counter to this threat. The early Bazookas had a very short range and not much penetration except for a side or rear shot. American Bazooka operators were trained to go for the tracks and road wheels if such a shot was in the offing.
Perhaps the effect against some shaped charge rounds was only an accidental benefit, that decreased as these weapons were pefected. I do know that many modern tanks still use such skirting as proof against light anti tank missles and RPGs to protect their vulnerable running gear.
Appreciative,